Cause and effect

I think the most important part about a cause and effect argument is how to properly understand them, and use them. For example, it is good to know that when we argue from cause to produce effect, we are using our inductive reasoning skills. On the contrary, if we argue from an effect and try to produce the cause, we are using our deductive reasoning skills.
It is also very important that we do not use any faulty logic in our reasoning. For example, we can’t base conclusions on information that we aren’t sure is true. This means, we can’t just guess or base our thoughts on coincidence because it is not concrete detail.
Another thing that is very important is to understand that direct causes are the best thing to focus on. These are also known as effects. We want to focus on direct causes that relate to each other rather than picking random and unrelated ones.

Reading 2

This reading was very helpful. I wish the book was as detailed as this reading. For example, the appeal to emotion was much easier to understand. They outlined each type of appeal to emotion and gave examples of each. I feel as though the book didn’t do that as well. But either way, I now have a greater understanding of all the appeal to emotion with a combination of the book and the website. The same thing goes for the explanation of fallacies. This web page went into depth about lots of different types and did a much greater job than the book. My knowledge of these topics has increased highly after reading this website. It helped a lot how each subcategory had its own link. Rather than having one big page with brief definitions, each different topic had a separate page and explicit definition. I honestly wish I read this more towards the beginning of the semester. Good stuff!

The reading on Causal Arguments

The main thing I liked about this reading is how it discussed law. My dad is a lawyer and so I have grown up with having to argue with a professional arguer. This reading, however, was very interesting to me because I have always wondered how lawyers think and argue so fluently in a court of law. Causal reasoning is basically what lawyers use a lot when trying to when a case. They go over the “cause and effect” of a situation and then try and argue the validity. The reading concluded with giving us three main pointers in causal reasoning. The first was to question how acceptable the implied comparison is. Second, we must question how likely the case of the cause is. And third, we must question how credible the “only significant difference” or “only significant commonality” claim is. The difference and commonality part are what help make the argument valid and that is what we always see lawyers arguing about in court to win their case. I enjoyed the reading and hope you guys did too ;P

number 2 blog (deductive and inductive reasoning)

I was confused on the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. I went onto http://www.nakedscience.org/mrg/Deductive%20and%20Inductive%20Reasoning.htm to get more information on this topic. They explain that “deductive reasoning arrives at a specific conclusion based on generalizations. Inductive reasoning takes events and makes generalizations.”
Basically, we take what we know about something and use that to try and make a conclusion. For example:
If all fraternity guys are losers, then the guys in Delta Upsilon should be losers as well. But since they are players and not losers, we can not conclude that all fraternity guys are losers. This is an example of deductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning is basically the opposite of deductive reasoning. This is where we make observations about something. For example, if a man bought 4 different types of beer at a bar and they all cost 6 dollars, then his inductive reasoning would lead him to assume that all beers at that bar are going to cost 6 dollars.

Types of reasoning

Reasoning by analogy:
Andy is a skateboarder and he crashed.
Wesley is a skateboarder so we will crash.
Just because Andy crashed, doesn’t mean Wesley will crash.
Sign Reasoning:
When there’s a cut, there is blood.
When there’s blood, there’s a cut.
If you are cut, you will bleed. But if there are numerous ways that blood could be present, so we can’t assume there is a cut just because there is blood. It could be a nosebleed or anything.
Causal Reasoning:
Saying that weed causes people to get high or that getting high is caused by smoking weed is causal reasoning because it is the relationship of the two to cause and effect or to effect and cause each other.
Criteria Reasoning:
Sometimes it’s good to try new things. We have never eaten sushi, so maybe we should try it.
Reasoning by example:
You should not cheat on your girlfriend. I had a friend who cheated on his girlfriend all the time and then she found out and they were both emotionally messed up for a long time.
Inductive reasoning:
My teacher has taken attendance every day. My teacher will also take attendance tomorrow.
Deductive reasoning:
All full time students have to take at least 12 units.
Val is a full time student. So he is taking at least 12 units.

#3: Analogies in Law

I will be discussing analogies in the law. First, we should know what an analogy is. As I found in the dictionary, “an analogy is a similarity between like features of two things, on which acomparison may be based: the analogy between the heartand a pump”.These analogies are presented in a very detailed manor so that we can carefully analyze them as arguments. This makes them more serious and reliable than other arguments. Law is very serious but laws can be vague at the same time. Here is an example from the book:
Basically, the Supreme Court has decided that it is a constitutional right for a doctor to stop giving medical treatment to someone who is going to die if that individual wishes so. This is basically saying that it is okay to assist someone to commit suicide. This is an example of two similar situations that are an example of analogies in Law.

appeal to fear

Appeal to fear is used a lot to really get people to feel a certain way about something. This usually makes people feel angry as well. An example of this would be like telling someone: “Dogs bite, they have rabies and have been known to kill at times as well.” Then making the argument: We need to get rid of dogs because they are dangerous. I know this is an outrageous example but it is just showing how we can use fear as an emotion to spark people to feel a certain way about something. Sometimes it can also start with facts that make you feel fear, but then also make you feel angry because they state facts that upset you. Like the one in the book talking about how a guy has raped and killed and got away with it. This sparks fear but it also makes you angry as well.

Appeal to Emotion excercise

4. A feel good argument
Yes officer I was speeding. But I was only going five miles over the speed limit. This would be my first speeding ticket and I always abide traffic laws. I slipped up this once because my car does not have cruise control so I have to constantly look down at the speedometer so see how fast I’m going. Since I was going downhill I lost track for a second and accidently went over the speed limit by only five miles an hour. I’m sorry but I have always followed the laws and I don’t think it is fair that you give me this ticket.
This would be a feel-good argument because I want to feel good about myself and make the officer possible pity me and not give me a ticket. Situations happen like this all the time but are a way of arguing with appeal to emotion.

Appeal To Emotion (Spite)

An appeal to emotion is basically when someone makes an argument because they actually have certain feelings on the certain topic. This means that it is prescriptive because it comes from opinion and someone’s personal view instead of a fact based argument. There are several different types of appeal to emotion such as appeal to fear, pity, spite and vanity. The one that caught my attention here is appeal to spite. This is basically where someone is holding onto a grudge and uses that in their argument. I think this is personally wrong but people seem to do it often. An example of this would be:
"I would save you from drowning Phil, but last week you snitched me out to the cops."
This shows that the person making the statement is holding something personal against Phil, therefore, he will not help him. This is morally wrong and I can’t stand when people do things like this. Hope this helps ;P